The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Companion animal economics: the economic impact of companion animals in the UK. Research report
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this report is to raise awareness of the importance of research concerning the economic impact of companion animals on society. This report was inspired by the seminal Council for Science and Society (CSS) report Companion Animals in Society (1988), and updates and extends its evaluation of the value that companion animals bring to society. Data available from the UK are used as examples throughout, but many of the points raised relate to industrialized nations globally. It highlights potential direct and indirect costs and benefits of companion animals to the economy, and the value of exploring these further. There is currently a lack of high quality data for some aspects of this evaluation which needs to be addressed to enable a more confident analysis; however, given the scale of the potential impact (added economic value and savings possible) the matter should not be ignored for this reason. When evaluating the contribution of companion animals to the UK economy both positive and negative aspects should be considered. Employing a conservative version of methods used in the best study of its kind to date examining healthcare savings through reduced number of doctor visits, it is estimated that pet ownership in the UK may reduce use of the National Health Service (NHS) to the value of £2.45 billion/year. The cost of NHS treatment for bites and strikes from dogs is estimated as £3 million/year (i.e. approximately 0.1% of the health savings). It is concluded that research into companion animals that relates to their potential economic impact on society should be supported by government.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It has been estimated that pet ownership saved Australia $1 billion in 1994 [29], while it may reduce the use of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK to the value of £2.45 billion per year [30].”
From A One Health Perspective on the Human-Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects. (2020) · cites this paper as [30]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Overgaauw, P. A. M., Vinke, C. M., van Hagen, M. A. E., & Lipman, L. J. A. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17113789 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Hall, S., Dolling, L., Bristow, K., Fuller, T., & Mills, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Lincoln (GB)
- Venue
- CABI eBooks
- Publisher
- CABI
- Published
- 2016-12-05
- OpenAlex
- W2567688955
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.69
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CABI eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Keywords
- companion animals, pet ownership, healthcare savings, National Health Service, dog bites, veterinary costs, pet industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review